The Fellowship of Lifea Christian-based vegetarian group founded in 1973

|

Articles

Men and animals

by Terence Morris From The Tablet dated 1 February 1986:

The Westminster Cathedral Conference Centre and was packed to the
doors last weekend for a meeting on Christians and animal welfare
organised by the Christian Consultative Council for the Welfare of
Animals.

The Westminster location has two relevant historical connections.
Cardinal Manning was one of the principle figures behind the Cruelty to
Animals Act of 1876; and on land where the cathedral now stands there
was once a pit where bulls were tormented by dogs for human pleasure.

It was a group of clergymen who were responsible for founding the
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to animals in 1824. Other
Christians, however, had untroubled consciences, and throughout last
weekend's conference a tiny but very vocal anti-Christian minority lost
no chance to charge the Church with hypocrisy. Bishop Agnellus Andrew
was among those who had to put up with their barracking.

The 1876 Act was concerned to curb gross cruelty and suffering
inflicted on animals in everyday life and to limit the use of animals
for scientific experiments. Before that date animals could be and often
were dissected in the lecture theatres of medical schools. The Act
provided for a system of licensing and control by the Home Secretary but
it was so flexible that many critics regarded the protection which it
afforded as no more than illusory. In a wide range of experiments
animals have been progressively poisoned to death, used as targets for
new military ordinance, blinded to test shampoo liquid and subjected to
all manner of surgical experimentation.

Terrible though the suffering of laboratory animals is, any RSPCA
inspector can testify to the everyday abuse and neglect which is also
persistent. It is not limited to starvation of dogs, cats, horses or
ponies, nor to torturing of animals by children and teenagers who in
taking such savage pleasure are a constant reminder that there will
never be a shortage of brutal prison guards or interrogators. Calculated
cruelty in the form of organised dog fighting, cock-fighting and
badger-baiting is becoming re-established in Britain. Hare coursing and
foxhunting – the so-called country sports – remain within the protection
of the law.

A new phenomenon to contend with is factory farming. Intensive
techniques have transformed the lives of farm animals, many of whom no
longer see the light of day. The pig farrowing crate, the battery unit
with its tens of thousands of hens, the slats on which anaemic calves
spend their unnatural lives are a horrifying testimony to what has gone
wrong. As Ruth Harrison of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and a member
of the Church of England's Board for Social Responsibility put it, the
questions asked are only “Is it productive? Is it cost-effective? –
never “Is it right?”.

A growing number of people are now refusing to eat pig and sheep
meat, beef or factory produced poultry or battery laid eggs. They choose
vegetable foods produced by organic methods. For them vegetarianism is a
categorical imperative following from the principal of animal rights.

The Christian tradition is that man has been given dominion over
animals. In his keynote speech Bishop Baker argued that “dominion” has
to be seen in terms not of exploitation but of trusteeship. But his
attempt to sketch a scriptural argument for animal rights was treated
with scepticism by Donald Soper, who reminded the audience that the
Bible was replete with contradictory elements. He was unable to “read
off” an unambiguous message from Scripture. Instead, he was persuaded
that we have to look for guidance “in the spirit of Jesus”. One had to
present oneself with the idea of the same Jesus who cleansed the temple
reacting to a farm factory or the experiments in a commercial
laboratory.

However, the issue of animal rights is not straightforward. Some
categories of cruelty can be disposed of easily enough. Fox hunting and
other sports which are essentially pleasurable for the participants can
be banned. But what of factory farming from which millions benefit? What
of experiments to control disease and relieve human suffering?

Legislation is currently on the parliamentary timetable to replace
the 1876 act. Richard Ryder, a former chairman of the RSPCA, dismissed
the new proposals as no better than the old. Ryder sees the scientists
and experimenters continuing to dominate the situation.

His paper was not to the liking of Clive Hollands – as valiant a
campaigner against animal abuse as any of those present. In his view,
half a loaf was better than none; and he insisted on the need to work
within the law. A minority of those present barracked him to the point
of nearly disrupting the proceedings.

This was a taste of the violent strand in the animal rights movement
which is so much feared by the mainstream. To sabotage foxhunting is one
thing; to wreck animal laboratories and harass experimenters and
breeders of laboratory animals is quite another. The believers in direct
action, curiously, even borrow from the vocabulary of terrorism when
they describe themselves, for example, as the Animal Liberation Army.
Many who are deeply committed to animal rights fear that such an
approach will alienate public opinion and throw doubt on the legitimacy
of the cause.

Whether the mainstream likes it or not, however, direct action is now
an established part of the animal rights scene. How far it may prove to
be a serious impediment to the forward movement is arguable. Even the
most outrageous acts of the suffragettes did not prevent women from
getting the vote.